Do new OTA antenna(s/e) improve over time?

Hi,

Well, there just was a post on AVS on this subject:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/369015/san-francisco-ca-ota/9810#post_24022120

It actually is OT, it should be here:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/381623/the-official-avs-antenna-and-related-hardware-topic/15630#post_24012525

You will get to the posts about new designs by reading backwards from the
end so I gave you the latest post.
If you ask there for the links to the new antenna designs they will give you
the links to many web pages on making your own and evaluations of currently
available to purchase antennas.

Some links have book marked. I have as my main antenna (Four total) a
CM4228HD thus the links I saved.

http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ANTENNAS/types.html

http://imageevent.com/holl_ands/multibay/8bayrefl/cm4228hd;jsessionid=rijfmne704.frog_s

http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ANTENNAS/TemporaryPage.html

AVS is where the experts are, not on USENET!

Indoor antennas, the ATSC spec requires an outdoor antenna for reception.

An indoor antenna is like looking for shooting stars in your basement,
perhaps but don't count on seeing many from it's windows.

SHF

Post by Ant
Like did they improve at all from last year, or are they mostly the
same? How about since analog days? This is assuming those indoor and
outdoor types.
Thank you in advance. :)
--
Quote of the Week: "Even the sharpest ear cannot hear an ant
singing." --Sudanese
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail. If crediting,
( ) then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.

Patty Winter

2013-12-02 22:51:44 UTC

Post by Stephen H. Fischer
Indoor antennas, the ATSC spec requires an outdoor antenna for reception.

Hogwash. I'm getting 45-50 channels on rabbit ears. Whether you need an
outside antenna depends on where you are in relation to the transmitters.
IOW, the same issue as with NTSC.

Patty

Stephen H. Fischer

2013-12-02 23:15:08 UTC

I did not say that they "might not", just that in general they do not.

It just is in the ATSC spec and except for a breakthrough demonstrated in a
NYC apartment, years after the ATSC spec was adopted, even outdoor antennas
might not have worked. You have to go really far back in the USENET archives
to find those posts.

Post by Patty Winter
IOW, the same issue as with NTSC.

I have watched plenty of NTSC shows that it was very hard to tell what was
going on.

With ATSC I would have gotten NOTHING, no Video or Audio.

It's perfect or nothing.

How many of the 45=50 streams do you watch? Are there some more that you
wish you could?

The paper thin antennas now being sold are such a rip off, and they are
appearing as the antenna of choice for those reporting that they don't get
the stations they want, that
it is just so funny.

YMMV

The OP wanted to improve his reception with a newer antenna. That's what the
first post I linked to talks about. And the rest of the links.

SHF

Post by Stephen H. Fischer
Indoor antennas, the ATSC spec requires an outdoor antenna for reception.

Hogwash. I'm getting 45-50 channels on rabbit ears. Whether you need an
outside antenna depends on where you are in relation to the transmitters.
IOW, the same issue as with NTSC.
Patty

Alan

2013-12-03 08:22:20 UTC

Post by Stephen H. Fischer
I have watched plenty of NTSC shows that it was very hard to tell what was
going on.
With ATSC I would have gotten NOTHING, no Video or Audio.

Or, you would have gotten a perfect signal.

Back when analog was still running, we had channel 50 (ATSC) and 54 (NTSC).
Both came from the same antenna (they were the digital and analog versions of
the same station). The ATSC signal was running between 30 - 40 percent as
much power as the NTSC signal. (At times, due to transmitte problems, it
reportedly ran even less.)

Here, the NTSC signal had some wide lines of colored noise, no visible picture,
but some signs of unstable sync bars flickering across the screen. The sound
was impossible to make out.

The ATSC signal was perfect, picture and sound, with no dropouts.

ATSC tuners are far more capable of processing the signal to deal with
reflections and multipath than NTSC ones.

Ant asked about antennas improving over time - not much. Better antenna
designs have been around since well before Ant was born. The best way to
identify them is to note that they are often bigger, and more solidly built
than the cheaper ones found on the market. Electrical designs matter too,
but if they fall apart in a year out in the weather, they weren't much good.

Alan

G-squared

2013-12-03 04:04:54 UTC

Post by Stephen H. Fischer
Indoor antennas, the ATSC spec requires an outdoor antenna for reception.

Hogwash. I'm getting 45-50 channels on rabbit ears. Whether you need an
outside antenna depends on where you are in relation to the transmitters.
IOW, the same issue as with NTSC.
Patty

I varies DRAMATICALLY from location to location. Reflections ('ghosts') have a profound effect on DTV. The auto equalizers can fix most but not all problems. I believe you get satisfactory results but bunny ears might be totally useless a block or two away for your neighbors.

Rabbit ears have no gain and no ghost rejection but outdoor antennas can be very directional and much more sensitive.

Bottom line, try the ears and if you're happy, you're done. They don't work at my house but the antenna system I installed is literally flawless in its' performance.

G²

Andrew Rossmann

2013-12-02 22:07:54 UTC

Post by Ant
Like did they improve at all from last year, or are they mostly the
same? How about since analog days? This is assuming those indoor and
outdoor types.

An antenna is an antenna. It knows nothing about whether a signal is
analog or digital. It's all about how sensitive it is, how well it aims,
and what frequencies it's designed for.

If anything, in the digital age, aiming can be more critical as signal
reflections can cause errors or the inablity to tune into something. For
analog, it just caused ghosts.

--
If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
law!!
http://home.comcast.net/~andyross

meagain

2013-12-02 22:43:52 UTC

Post by Andrew Rossmann

Post by Ant
Like did they improve at all from last year, or are they mostly the
same? How about since analog days? This is assuming those indoor and
outdoor types.

An antenna is an antenna. It knows nothing about whether a signal is
analog or digital. It's all about how sensitive it is, how well it aims,
and what frequencies it's designed for.
If anything, in the digital age, aiming can be more critical as signal
reflections can cause errors or the inablity to tune into something. For
analog, it just caused ghosts.

Not all antennae are created equal :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna

Gene E. Bloch

2013-12-02 23:27:20 UTC

Post by meagain

Post by Andrew Rossmann

Post by Ant
Like did they improve at all from last year, or are they mostly the
same? How about since analog days? This is assuming those indoor and
outdoor types.

An antenna is an antenna. It knows nothing about whether a signal is
analog or digital. It's all about how sensitive it is, how well it aims,
and what frequencies it's designed for.
If anything, in the digital age, aiming can be more critical as signal
reflections can cause errors or the inablity to tune into something. For
analog, it just caused ghosts.

Not all antennae are created equal :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna

There goes Intelligent Design :-)

In truth, I found the article fascinating.

And it's nice to know that apparently I can make a great antenna out of
a paper clip...

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2013-12-02 23:59:13 UTC

Post by Andrew Rossmann
An antenna is an antenna. It knows nothing about whether a signal is
analog or digital.

You mean, it knows nothing about the information it carries and whether
that information is readable by an analog tuner or by a digital tuner.
It's just a radio signal.

Jim Wilkins

2013-12-02 23:46:41 UTC

Post by Ant
Like did they improve at all from last year, or are they mostly the
same? How about since analog days? This is assuming those indoor and
outdoor types.
Thank you in advance. :)
--

If you Google for high-performance "deep fringe" antennas you'll see
designs that have barely changed since the 1950's, showing that they
are a mature, well-optimized technology. The change to ATSC only
removed the need for the longest elements, which were for channels
2-6. The highest UHF channels were also dropped but that had little
effect on antenna design. The digital channels use the same frequency
allocations and channel bandwidth as the old analog system and an
antenna doesn't know the difference.

I have a CM4228 for UHF that gives over 90 (of 100) signal indication
at 30 miles.

NotMe

2013-12-03 02:31:44 UTC

Post by Ant
Like did they improve at all from last year, or are they mostly the
same? How about since analog days? This is assuming those indoor and
outdoor types.
Thank you in advance. :)
--

If you Google for high-performance "deep fringe" antennas you'll see
designs that have barely changed since the 1950's, showing that they are a
mature, well-optimized technology. The change to ATSC only removed the
need for the longest elements, which were for channels 2-6. The highest
UHF channels were also dropped but that had little effect on antenna
design. The digital channels use the same frequency allocations and
channel bandwidth as the old analog system and an antenna doesn't know the
difference.
I have a CM4228 for UHF that gives over 90 (of 100) signal indication at
30 miles.

The typical limiting factors with consumer antenna are the quality of the
antenna lead in and the noise factor of the amplifier.

Stephen H. Fischer

2013-12-03 02:58:53 UTC

Hi,

Post by Ant
Like did they improve at all from last year, or are they mostly the
same? How about since analog days? This is assuming those indoor and
outdoor types.
Thank you in advance. :)
--

If you Google for high-performance "deep fringe" antennas you'll see
designs that have barely changed since the 1950's, showing that they are a
mature, well-optimized technology. The change to ATSC only removed the
need for the longest elements, which were for channels 2-6. The highest
UHF channels were also dropped but that had little effect on antenna
design. The digital channels use the same frequency allocations and
channel bandwidth as the old analog system and an antenna doesn't know the
difference.

Correctly stated but VHF RF channels 2-6 may come back when all UHF RF
channels above 30 go away.

The improvement in antennas have been in the areas of front to back ratio
and rejection of signals from the side.

Both sorely needed to help make the ATSC front end find a clean signal out
of the multipath that we saw as ghosts on NTSC tuners.

The person who will build and test the new design has the experiance, time,
money and test equipment to do the test. As he says, the higher front to
back ratio is needed at his location.

Post by Jim Wilkins
I have a CM4228 for UHF that gives over 90 (of 100) signal indication at
30 miles.

My CM4228HD has started to have problems with a station that I usually can
get, one at ~ 97 miles.

It replaced in panic mode my attic antennas which I installed ~ 1972 when
the HOA replaced the roof with a metal one. Until then I had no plans / need
to change antennas.

SHF

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2013-12-03 09:59:36 UTC

Post by Stephen H. Fischer
It replaced in panic mode my attic antennas which I installed ~ 1972 when
the HOA replaced the roof with a metal one.

I hope you mean "condo association". Nobody better be coming to my
house and replacing the roof...

Gene E. Bloch

2013-12-03 20:05:17 UTC

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty

Post by Stephen H. Fischer
It replaced in panic mode my attic antennas which I installed ~ 1972 when
the HOA replaced the roof with a metal one.

I hope you mean "condo association". Nobody better be coming to my
house and replacing the roof...

Normally, HOA means "home-owners association", and indeed would refer
to the condo development's management.

Anyway, I'm not sure I'd like a metal roof, authorized or not :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Stephen H. Fischer

2013-12-03 21:34:14 UTC

Hi,

There is a difference between a "condo" and a "planned development of 245
townhomes".
I own the inside of my unit but not much else.

We saved up money for forty years to put new roofs on and paint all the
units, mine was painted yesterday and today.

See my AVS profile album for the roofing material of which one piece "fell"
into my patio.
http://www.avsforum.com/g/a/2165469/nanis-cm4228hd/

The outdoor CM4228HD has turned out much better than continuing to use the
attic antennas.

But the VHF low / high antenna in the attic might have been a better option
when VHF low comes back.

That subject has been very silent, the FCC has authorization only to the end
of 2014 to conduct the first auctions, where the stations get money for
going off the air. Only one has been identified and actually sold (KCSM).

THE 600 MHz SPECTRUM AUCTION:
AN ANALYSIS OF THE BAND PLAN FRAMEWORK
Professors Reed and Tripathi

http://www.avsforum.com/t/823166/the-official-final-dtv-table-of-allotments-channel-change-thread/7350#post_22992233

Post # 7371

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022112024

Normally, HOA means "home-owners association", and indeed would refer to
the condo development's management.
Anyway, I'm not sure I'd like a metal roof, authorized or not :-)
--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Choosing between an attic antenna and an antenna outside, outside will win
every time.

SHF

Gene E. Bloch

2013-12-03 23:05:55 UTC

Post by Stephen H. Fischer
There is a difference between a "condo" and a "planned development of 245
townhomes".
I own the inside of my unit but not much else.

Even when I lived in a condo or a planned development, I wasn't quite
sure of the legalities. By now I've been lucky enough to forget even
that bit :-)

Anyway, since IANAL, the difference no longer matters to me.

We lived in a very small one of whichever it was (I think it was also a
planned development, BTW), and it was hellish. With only a few units,
we rarely had enough cooperation from the rest of the inhabitants to be
able to do anything :-(

With 10% of the residents willing to cooperate, you would average 24 or
25 contributors. With only a handful of units in our development, that
10% averaged out to 0.

Ten percent, of course, is a number that I pulled out of my hat :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Bill Gill

2013-12-03 23:38:11 UTC

Post by Stephen H. Fischer
Choosing between an attic antenna and an antenna outside, outside will win
every time.

I'm not too sure of that. I depends a bit. If you want to
use a rotator then outside is probably necessary. If you live
in an area fairly close to the transmitters you may not need
the rotator, and can quite likely get by with an attic antenna.
Of course if you live in the middle of a city with transmitters
all around you then you will probably need the rotator. Where
I live there is only one channel that I particularly like that
I can't get with one fixed antenna in the attic. That channel
is just about at 90 degrees from the main transmitters in this
area. So I need either a rotator or a separate antenna to get
it. I have been trying to get by with a quicky fix on it, but
everytime I get a decent signal it goes away. The next fix
will be to put up a UHF antenna pointed right at it. Then
I can mix the 2 signals with a reversed splitter and get all
the channels I want.

Other people would have different needs right here. The thing
is that the majority of the channels that I can't get are
religious channels and I don't care if I get them. Anybody
who does want them has a different problem from mine.

Bill

Stephen H. Fischer

2013-12-04 00:00:41 UTC

Post by Stephen H. Fischer
Choosing between an attic antenna and an antenna outside, outside will win
every time.

... Then
I can mix the 2 signals with a reversed splitter and get all
the channels I want.
... Bill

I have a bridge to sell you, it's name is "The Brooklyn Bridge". :D

Bill Gill

2013-12-04 02:38:12 UTC

Post by Stephen H. Fischer
Choosing between an attic antenna and an antenna outside, outside will win
every time.

... Then
I can mix the 2 signals with a reversed splitter and get all
the channels I want.
... Bill

I have a bridge to sell you, it's name is "The Brooklyn Bridge". :D

I don't need a bridge. All I need is to get Channel 35 from
Claremore. It has worked some with the cludges I have been
using. By replacing the cludge with an real antenna I should
be able to get it just fine.

Bill

Stephen H. Fischer

2013-12-04 04:35:08 UTC

Hi,

If it works, please do not tell anyone.

The rare case when it works is just that, rare.

The JoinTenna webpage does not list RF 35.

They appear to have stopped making them and are just selling old stock.

TVFool results link?

SHF

Post by Stephen H. Fischer
Choosing between an attic antenna and an antenna outside, outside will win
every time.

... Then
I can mix the 2 signals with a reversed splitter and get all
the channels I want.
... Bill

I have a bridge to sell you, it's name is "The Brooklyn Bridge". :D

Bill Gill

2013-12-04 14:11:36 UTC

Post by Stephen H. Fischer
Hi,
If it works, please do not tell anyone.
The rare case when it works is just that, rare.
The JoinTenna webpage does not list RF 35.
They appear to have stopped making them and are just selling old stock.
TVFool results link?
SHF

Post by Stephen H. Fischer
Choosing between an attic antenna and an antenna outside, outside will win
every time.

... Then
I can mix the 2 signals with a reversed splitter and get all
the channels I want.
... Bill

I have a bridge to sell you, it's name is "The Brooklyn Bridge". :D

?????????????
I'm afraid I have no idea what you are talking about.

Bill

Jim Wilkins

2013-12-04 14:33:44 UTC

Post by Stephen H. Fischer
Hi,
If it works, please do not tell anyone.
The rare case when it works is just that, rare.
SHF

Post by Bill Gill
I can mix the 2 signals with a reversed splitter and get all
the channels I want.
... Bill

Combining antennas is very tricky, the two can interfere with each
other or give you multipath.
http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ANTENNAS/ganging.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_(wave_propagation)
"In physics, interference is a phenomenon in which two waves
superimpose to form a resultant wave of greater or lower amplitude."
The wavelength at UHF is around half a meter, so even if you match the
cable lengths a 9-10" difference in the distances from the station to
the two antennas can make them cancel each other out completely.

http://www.highdefforum.com/local-hdtv-info-reception/110108-what-hardware-join-2-uhf-antennas.html
"If they are aimed different directions, they will each radiate the
others signal back out and probably end up worse than one antenna."

This is what you would need to determine how well the antenna
combination actually works across the frequency band:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_analyzer_(electrical)
At Mitre we had a special room with radar-absorbing walls and a truck
filled with test gear and a generator to measure antenna patterns
indoors if possible and outside when necessary. I worked mostly on the
computer part of digital radios but sometimes was assigned to help
with antenna testing.

Naturally they chose a day for an outdoor test so cold and windy that
the Boston airport closed. Fortunately I carry Air Force
flight-line-mechanic insulated coveralls in my truck. I stood outside
comfortably making the measurements while the antenna tech I was
"helping" huddled in the cab with the heater on full.

I run my two TV antennas to an A-B switch on the equipment rack that
directs one or the other into the distribution amp. If I want to
record multiple programs using both antennas I temporarily repatch the
two feeds through spare amps and splitters.

jsw

Smarty

2013-12-04 14:51:25 UTC

Post by Stephen H. Fischer
Hi,
If it works, please do not tell anyone.
The rare case when it works is just that, rare.
SHF

Post by Bill Gill
I can mix the 2 signals with a reversed splitter and get all
the channels I want.
... Bill

Combining antennas is very tricky, the two can interfere with each
other or give you multipath.
http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ANTENNAS/ganging.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_(wave_propagation)
"In physics, interference is a phenomenon in which two waves
superimpose to form a resultant wave of greater or lower amplitude."
The wavelength at UHF is around half a meter, so even if you match the
cable lengths a 9-10" difference in the distances from the station to
the two antennas can make them cancel each other out completely.
http://www.highdefforum.com/local-hdtv-info-reception/110108-what-hardware-join-2-uhf-antennas.html
"If they are aimed different directions, they will each radiate the
others signal back out and probably end up worse than one antenna."
This is what you would need to determine how well the antenna
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_analyzer_(electrical)
At Mitre we had a special room with radar-absorbing walls and a truck
filled with test gear and a generator to measure antenna patterns
indoors if possible and outside when necessary. I worked mostly on the
computer part of digital radios but sometimes was assigned to help
with antenna testing.
Naturally they chose a day for an outdoor test so cold and windy that
the Boston airport closed. Fortunately I carry Air Force
flight-line-mechanic insulated coveralls in my truck. I stood outside
comfortably making the measurements while the antenna tech I was
"helping" huddled in the cab with the heater on full.
I run my two TV antennas to an A-B switch on the equipment rack that
directs one or the other into the distribution amp. If I want to
record multiple programs using both antennas I temporarily repatch the
two feeds through spare amps and splitters.
jsw
Having spent many many hours working with phased UHF arrays in both home TV as well as ham radio applications, I can easily confirm that adding / combining two antennas into a combiner is just a very bad idea.

My solution for HDTV is a bit complex but works superbly given that two
clusters of channels at 2 different compass angles / arrival directions
were required:

I use a home theater PC tuner with 2 separate tuner cards. Each card
gets the antenna for the channels it has been assigned.

The program guide of my HTPC software merges the two program guides such
that when I select a channel to watch or to record, the corresponding
tuner gets the request and uses the optimal antenna.

The two antennas themselves are attic mounted and spaced several
wavelengths apart, pointed to the two compass angles I needed.

Great reception on 37 channels!

Smarty

Jim Wilkins

2013-12-04 16:50:16 UTC

Post by Jim Wilkins
Having spent many many hours working with phased UHF arrays in both
home TV as well as ham radio applications, I can easily confirm that
adding / combining two antennas into a combiner is just a very bad
idea.
My solution for HDTV is a bit complex but works superbly given that
two clusters of channels at 2 different compass angles / arrival
I use a home theater PC tuner with 2 separate tuner cards. Each card
gets the antenna for the channels it has been assigned.
The program guide of my HTPC software merges the two program guides
such that when I select a channel to watch or to record, the
corresponding tuner gets the request and uses the optimal antenna.
The two antennas themselves are attic mounted and spaced several
wavelengths apart, pointed to the two compass angles I needed.
Great reception on 37 channels!
Smarty

That is a nice example of how you have to study, experiment, and
become your own expert to make OTA work well in a difficult situation.
The principles of radio aren't intuitive. We call it FM (F#&king
Magic) for good reason.
jsw

Stephen H. Fischer

2013-12-04 18:57:53 UTC

Post by Smarty
...
My solution for HDTV is a bit complex but works superbly given that two
clusters of channels at 2 different compass angles / arrival directions
I use a home theater PC tuner with 2 separate tuner cards. Each card gets
the antenna for the channels it has been assigned.
The program guide of my HTPC software merges the two program guides such
that when I select a channel to watch or to record, the corresponding
tuner gets the request and uses the optimal antenna.
The two antennas themselves are attic mounted and spaced several
wavelengths apart, pointed to the two compass angles I needed.
Great reception on 37 channels!
Smarty

A good description of my system except I have a automatic scheduling program
that downloads the listings once a day, checks the programs in the next 26
hours against a match list and then against a database to eliminate programs
that I have watched before.

I watch little live DTV, but then most programs are from the 1959-1975
period. (GetTV, Retro TV, ThisTV, MeTV, Cozi and Antenna TV. There is one
more coming I suspect, MOVIES! TV.)

I have seven (7) tuners and three (3) antennas. One antenna is connected to
a dedicated antenna for one station on top of the Devil Mountain and another
antenna is connected to a tuner that has two (2) RF terminals. That antenna
is pointed South East for a station to the North East. I have one more
antenna that can replace the antenna pointed at Mt. Diablo if needed like
when my main antenna had to be taken down for termites. The best two tuners
are not used due to faulty software.
-----------------------

Bill:

Jointenna is a antenna coupler that consists of two filters. A notch filter
that passes all signals EXCEPT for one RF channel, RF 35 in this discussion.
The second filter is a band pass filter that passes ONLY one RF channel, RF
35 in this discussion.

If a Jointenna consisted of IDEAL filters, then they would still be sold. In
practice they are far from ideal but will create less multi-path which the
reverse splitter usage creates very much more of.

The request for a link to your TVFool results is to learn how foolish the
idea of using a reverse splitter is for you.

http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29

I will extract the zipcode and enter it into this page to understand your
location and if there are any mountains that might create multi-path for
you. That page does not create a link.

http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=90

Here is my results, the TVFool link is required for any real DTV antenna
discussion.

http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d46ae4989f75b87

SHF

Gene E. Bloch

2013-12-04 22:01:50 UTC

I have one more antenna that can replace the antenna pointed at Mt. Diablo if
needed like when my main antenna had to be taken down for termites.

Suggestion: do not use wooden antennas.

Disclaimer: I actually *do* know what you mean :-)

Our termite adventure happened before we installed the outdoor antenna.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Stephen H. Fischer

2013-12-04 23:18:39 UTC

OPPS,

One antenna is connected to a dedicated antenna for one station on top of
the Devil Mountain

Should have been typed as

One antenna is connected to a dedicated tuner for one station on top of
the Devil Mountain

Sorry.

SHF

G-squared

2013-12-04 22:15:31 UTC

Post by Stephen H. Fischer
Choosing between an attic antenna and an antenna outside, outside will
win
every time.

... Then
I can mix the 2 signals with a reversed splitter and get all
the channels I want.
... Bill

I have a bridge to sell you, it's name is "The Brooklyn Bridge". :D

I'm using a Winegard 7084 in the garage rafters but only for the VHF hi channels. I combine that with a Winegard SquareShooter on the roof for the UHF using a UHF/VHF splitter in reverse.

Using a wideband splitter in reverse is a little tricky so that you don't get spurious pickup of one antenna conflicting with primary pickup from the other. If that's a problem, Jointenna diplexers are frequency selective but they cost quite a bit more.

G²

Gene E. Bloch

2013-12-04 22:25:25 UTC

Post by G-squared

Post by Bill Gill
I can mix the 2 signals with a reversed splitter and get all
the channels I want.
... Bill

I have a bridge to sell you, it's name is "The Brooklyn Bridge". :D

I'm using a Winegard 7084 in the garage rafters but only for the VHF hi
channels. I combine that with a Winegard SquareShooter on the roof for the
UHF using a UHF/VHF splitter in reverse.
Using a wideband splitter in reverse is a little tricky so that you don't get
spurious pickup of one antenna conflicting with primary pickup from the
other. If that's a problem, Jointenna diplexers are frequency selective but
they cost quite a bit more.

I was thinking of a physical switch, that is, a box with two inputs and
one output, where only one output at a time is fed to the input. An
electronic switch with a remote control is a pretty convenient version
of that, IMO.

But I think Smarty's solution is more elegant than my idea.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Gene E. Bloch

2013-12-04 23:37:31 UTC

Post by Gene E. Bloch
where only one output at a time is fed to the input

I can't believe I let that get away from me. Actually, I can believe
it...

One *input* at a time is connected to the *output*.

There!

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Jim Wilkins

2013-12-05 00:30:03 UTC

...> I was thinking of a physical switch, that is, a box with two
inputs and one output, where only one output at a time is fed to the
input. An electronic switch with a remote control is a pretty
convenient version of that, IMO.
But I think Smarty's solution is more elegant than my idea.
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

I just grabbed a Radio Shack Remote-Controlled A/B Switch at closeout
price..............

The combinatorial matrix of my antennas, amps, TVs and recording
computers would be too large and expensive to implement with switches
so I just patch them as needed on a row of F bulkhead feedthrus.
jsw

Gene E. Bloch

2013-12-05 03:46:51 UTC

...> I was thinking of a physical switch, that is, a box with two inputs
and one output, where only one output at a time is fed to the input. An
electronic switch with a remote control is a pretty convenient version of
that, IMO.
But I think Smarty's solution is more elegant than my idea.
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

I just grabbed a Radio Shack Remote-Controlled A/B Switch at closeout
price..............
The combinatorial matrix of my antennas, amps, TVs and recording computers
would be too large and expensive to implement with switches so I just patch
them as needed on a row of F bulkhead feedthrus.
jsw

Rmemeber the old telephone switchboards?

I am now picturing you in front of one of them.

Go to

http://www.history.army.mil/books/Vietnam/Comm-El/ch6.htm

and scroll down a ways.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Jim Wilkins

2013-12-05 04:37:37 UTC

Post by Jim Wilkins
The combinatorial matrix of my antennas, amps, TVs and recording
computers would be too large and expensive to implement with
switches so I just patch them as needed on a row of F bulkhead
feedthrus.
jsw

Rmemeber the old telephone switchboards?
I am now picturing you in front of one of them.
Go to
http://www.history.army.mil/books/Vietnam/Comm-El/ch6.htm
and scroll down a ways.
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

More likely I would have been in back of them, or in the relay racks,
or the [mumble] vault. My Army MOS included telephones but it was
really for digital communication over modems. I speak some German and
that's where they sent me.

To my complete amazement a couple of second-tour troops re-uped to get
out of Heidelberg and go back to Saigon. I witnessed the re-enlistment
and then asked them why. Both were black/Latino, and they told me in
Germany they were as invisible as in America, but in Vietnam the only
color that mattered was Green ($). They had been treated the same as
whites and liked it.

Sal

2013-12-11 01:35:05 UTC

Post by Stephen H. Fischer
Choosing between an attic antenna and an antenna outside, outside will win
every time.

Yes. When I was a kid, we lived in Westbury, Long Island, at the top of a
gently rising street. The houses between us and Manhattan were sufficiently
lower from us that we could "look over" them toward the transmitters on the
Empire State building, about 22 miles away. A simple four-element antenna,
lashed to the rafters in the attic was all we had or ever needed from 1951
onward.

From where I was stationed in Norfolk, I brought my first color TV, a Curtis
Mathes 14-inch portable, home to Westbury for Christmas, 1968. It workd
quite well on that antenna for most channels. A few channels had poor
color, possibly because the antenna performance was not uniform across the
whole 6MHz channel width.

"Sal"

Jim Wilkins

2013-12-11 12:21:03 UTC

... The houses between us and Manhattan were sufficiently lower from
us that we could "look over" them toward the transmitters on the
Empire State building, about 22 miles away. A simple four-element
antenna, lashed to the rafters in the attic was all we had or ever
needed from 1951 onward.
"Sal"

I get reasonably good reception at 30 miles with the little dipole
that comes with this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16815100075

jsw

2013-12-04 13:05:49 UTC

Post by Stephen H. Fischer
Hi,
There is a difference between a "condo" and a "planned development of 245
townhomes".
I own the inside of my unit but not much else.
We saved up money for forty years to put new roofs on and paint all the
units, mine was painted yesterday and today.

Sounds like a miserable way to live, probably because of too many years
of making my own decisions about my home. I live in the same house where
I grew up, the third generation of my family to own it and the 200-acre
farm that surrounds it. We put a new roof on the house eight years ago,
to suit ourselves. Didn't have to save for 40 years - just had to wait
for a good crop year, then we went to the store, bought materials, and
did the job ourselves. Took about a week, but it was late November, with
reduced daylight hours, and we had to work around regular farm chores.

...............

Post by Stephen H. Fischer
Choosing between an attic antenna and an antenna outside, outside will win
every time.

Depends on what you're looking for. If you want the strongest reception
possible, no matter what you actually NEED, then that's true. But if all
you want is adequate reception and the attic antenna gives you that, it
wins because of easier, less dangerous installation and maintenance, not
to mention less deterioration because of weather.

But for the more fortunate among us, neither wins. Where I live,
depending on which room I'm in, I can receive all the local stations
with simple bowtie indoor antennas. One station (ION-TV, 5 channels),
the most distant, is a problem in several rooms, but on the rare
occasion when I want to watch it these days, there is one room where
reception is adequate.

Bowties are cheap, installation is trivial, and they are easy to move if
the situation calls for it - so if they are all that's needed they win,
AFAIC.

TJ

Sal

2013-12-11 01:19:01 UTC

"Stephen H. Fischer" <***@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:ip-***@earthlink.com...

<snip >

Post by Stephen H. Fischer
Choosing between an attic antenna and an antenna outside, outside will win
every time.

In an ideal world, yes, but when I moved from a city home to an on-base
military housing complex in Fort Meade, Maryland, roof antennas were
forbidden, since guys would be apt to kill themselves falling off the roof
and (probably) wouldn't patch the holes in the roof when they got
transferred.

So I hoisted a couple of antennas into the big attic through the trap door,
connected them together (no coupler -- just twinlead), put the UHF antenna
nearby and on a rotor and sent the signal down a conduit to the living room.
Worked great. I WANTED the antennas to interfere. The VHF antenna was too
big to rotate because of the various struts that supported the roof, but the
UHF antenna rotated easily to null the ghosts. I got Baltimore to the north
and Washington to the south.

These days, I imagine they have cable , but in those days I was the only guy
who got good pictures on every channel from both cities. Nerds rule!!!

"Sal"
Alfa Nerd

Ant

2013-12-14 07:21:25 UTC

On 12/10/2013 5:19 PM PT, Sal typed:
...

Post by Sal
So I hoisted a couple of antennas into the big attic through the trap door,

...

Too bad, the big antenna(s/e) didn't work in my folks' house's attic.
They couldn't get much compared to outside even if facing the same
direction. Bah. Are your attics made out of wood or something without
metal pieces?

--
"Your parents were killed by ants?" --Idle Hands movie
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

2013-12-14 13:41:58 UTC

Post by Ant
...

Post by Sal
So I hoisted a couple of antennas into the big attic through the trap door,

...
Too bad, the big antenna(s/e) didn't work in my folks' house's attic.
They couldn't get much compared to outside even if facing the same
direction. Bah. Are your attics made out of wood or something without
metal pieces?

Mine is. The only "metal pieces" are the nails holding it together. But
then, my house is a bit over 100 years old.

Back in the 50's, my grandparents, who owned the place back then, lived
in the downstairs apartment of this house, and we lived in the upstairs
one. That was when broadcast was all there was, there were but two
channels(both VHF) in the area, and TVs were B&W and ran on vacuum
tubes. My grandparents had an antenna in the attic, and it worked great
as long as the twinlead that ran outside, down the wall of the house,
and back in to the TV held up. They didn't need a rotator, as both
transmitters were within a quarter mile of each other.

We used rabbit ears upstairs and that was OK, too.

It wasn't until years later, when we got a color TV, and more stations
at different compass points that were up in the UHF band that we started
having trouble with analog reception. Ghosting, flip-flopping when the
wind blew, buzzing sound could make some local channels unwatchable.
Fortunately, digital came along and all that disappeared.

TJ

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2013-12-14 17:22:27 UTC

Post by TJ
It wasn't until years later, when we got a color TV, and more stations
at different compass points that were up in the UHF band that we started
having trouble with analog reception. Ghosting, flip-flopping when the
wind blew, buzzing sound could make some local channels unwatchable.
Fortunately, digital came along and all that disappeared.

you mean, digital came along and those issues were replaced by other
issues, equally if not more annoying.

2013-12-15 00:13:30 UTC

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty

you mean, digital came along and those issues were replaced by other
issues, equally if not more annoying.

No, I didn't mean that. The minor issues I see with digital from time to
time are nowhere NEAR as bad as the ones I used to see with analog.

TJ

Sal

2013-12-15 06:01:55 UTC

The constrruction was wood frame with composite shingles, I think. Most of
our OTA signals were VHF and they penetrated the roof okay; the UHF antenna
was usually rotated just to cancel out some ghosting. It worked
surprisingly well, mostly by dumb luck. I mean, I expected some beneficial
effects before I tried it but no idea it would work as well as it did. The
VHF antenna was fixed toward Washington DC but, even so, we received the
Baltimore MD stations well, since we were closer to their transmitters.

Here in this house (San Diego), the only inside antenna I have is a 2-bay
UHF that looks through a wall that is stucco -- meaning an underlying wire
mesh. I never personally compared inside and outside for signal strength
with that little antenna. Future project.

"Sal"

...

Post by Sal
So I hoisted a couple of antennas into the big attic through the trap door,

...
Too bad, the big antenna(s/e) didn't work in my folks' house's attic. They
couldn't get much compared to outside even if facing the same direction.
Bah. Are your attics made out of wood or something without metal pieces?

m***@large

2013-12-16 15:51:06 UTC

Post by Sal
Here in this house (San Diego), the only inside antenna I have is a 2-bay
UHF that looks through a wall that is stucco -- meaning an underlying wire
mesh. I never personally compared inside and outside for signal strength
with that little antenna. Future project.

From my limited experience trying to get TV reception through stucco,
I predict you'll see a dramatic improvement putting the antenna
outside. At a relative's stucco house in Casa Grande, AZ I once tried
to pull in some Phoenix stations 35 miles away using a Silver Sensor.
I got nothing by pointing the antenna toward Phoenix, even when I
tried it in the attic crawl space, trying to get above the stucco
walls. But I got several channels fairly easily by aiming the wrong
direction through glass patio doors at a neighbor's house. That
house, also stucco, made an excellent reflector.

Jim Wilkins

2013-12-03 13:06:17 UTC

Post by Stephen H. Fischer
Hi,

Post by Jim Wilkins
I have a CM4228 for UHF that gives over 90 (of 100) signal
indication at 30 miles.

My CM4228HD has started to have problems with a station that I
usually can get, one at ~ 97 miles.
It replaced in panic mode my attic antennas which I installed ~ 1972
when the HOA replaced the roof with a metal one. Until then I had no
plans / need to change antennas.
SHF

I bought the CM4228HD in October from a TV antenna installer at a ham
radio flea market. He recommended spraying silicone on all the joints
to inhibit corrosion at the connections.

I think that was his first encounter with electronic hobbyists. He had
never ever heard of anyone using a spectrum analyzer to aim the
antenna before. Another customer walked up, joined the conversation
and mentioned that he too had a spectrum analyzer on his antenna
system.

I use an older Antennacraft HBU-33 for VHF from a different direction.
After a few years it lost sensitivity, so I pulled it down and tested
it. The end-to-end resistance was over 300 milliOhms, measured by
forcing 1 Amp through it with a lab power supply. I drilled out the
rivets, scrubbed the joints with a wire brush, coated them with
Ox-Gard and reassembled it with aluminum screws and nuts. The
resistance dropped to ~15 milliOhms and the received signal strength
rose from 60~70 to >90 on a DigitalStream converter box. I made other
changes while it was down so I can't say exactly how much was from
cleaning the connections.

Previously I had unlatched and wiggled the elements when it degraded,
but that didn't help for long.

http://www.lowes.com/pd_23853-1781-OX-100B_0__?productId=4514334

jsw

Stephen H. Fischer

2013-12-03 18:50:43 UTC

Post by Stephen H. Fischer
Hi,

Post by Jim Wilkins
I have a CM4228 for UHF that gives over 90 (of 100) signal indication at
30 miles.

My CM4228HD has started to have problems with a station that I usually
can get, one at ~ 97 miles.
It replaced in panic mode my attic antennas which I installed ~ 1972 when
the HOA replaced the roof with a metal one. Until then I had no plans /
need to change antennas.
SHF

My antenna installer, when he was ready to aim the antenna just looked to
the North West and locked it in place. He said that he knew where Sutro was.
(~ 40 miles through trees) He also remarked that Mt. Allison and Monument Pk
were in the little lobe of the CM4228HD which I knew about also.

The main lobe of the CM4228HD is so big that it is hard to point it in the
wrong direction. The metal roof behind eliminated any stations and multipath
from the east and south.

He had a ~ $2000 box to check the signals and used it. Why I do not know, we
had replaced the 8 - way splitter with the Channel Master 3418 eight (8)
outlet Multimedia Drop Amplifier which WAS NEEDED by that time and I could
tell that it was pointed correctly.

http://www.avsforum.com/lists/display/view_item/id/2671

When he put the CM4228HD back up after termites he was watching my checking
with the HDHomeRun tuner GUI which showed no difference from before. He
asked how I got the tuner onto the wireless network and I said "It exists
ONLY on the network".

"spectrum analyzer"? Here is a post from the person who is going to build
the High F/B Ratio UHF TV Log Periodic Antenna:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/369015/san-francisco-ca-ota/9720#post_23913864

--------------------
Channels 2-6, only a FM Radio station on RF 6 that I can barely get and some
more a little closer than the ~ 97 Mile station which is gone now. The one
at ~75 miles is just fine.

I get channel 1 (ONE) just fine!!!

http://www.choisser.com/sfonair.html

SHF

Jim Wilkins

2013-12-03 22:14:15 UTC

Post by Stephen H. Fischer
My antenna installer, when he was ready to aim the antenna just
looked to the North West and locked it in place. He said that he
knew where Sutro was. (~ 40 miles through trees) He also remarked
that Mt. Allison and Monument Pk were in the little lobe of the
CM4228HD which I knew about also.
The main lobe of the CM4228HD is so big that it is hard to point it
in the wrong direction. The metal roof behind eliminated any
stations and multipath from the east and south.

I bought it for the Fox station in Boston which has always been hard
to receive well here, though the others are strong enough for the
little clip-on dipole that comes with a USB tuner. Even the CM4228HD
was fussy about direction for Fox.

Post by Stephen H. Fischer
"spectrum analyzer"? Here is a post from the person who is going to
http://www.avsforum.com/t/369015/san-francisco-ca-ota/9720#post_23913864

A newer computerized instrument with digital frequency displays like
that would have cost me twice as much. I had them in the lab at Mitre
when I was building prototype radios but don't need as much just to
find and observe signals.

This is how a spectrum analyzer displays multipath:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/191672/los-angeles-ca-ota/8040
The flat-topped mesa on the right is a good ATSC signal for one
channel. Vertical height is signal strength and frequency increases
from left to right, by 2 MHz per grid line. The 6 MHz width of the
channel is the result of adding the various information signal
frequencies to the base frequency at the left (lower) edge. That's the
simple explanation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8VSB

The dips in the bad channel on the left wiggle around as the antenna
rotates. In my case the local station I watch most is behind a ridge
and I pick up ONLY multipath reflections of it. On analog the direct
path signal showed as a faint <leading> ghost, and there were three or
four strong trailing ones. The HDTV's signal quality meter bounces
all over as I rotate the antenna, and doesn't distinguish between
signal strength and multipath distortion.
jsw

Stephen H. Fischer

2013-12-03 23:33:58 UTC

Hi,

Post by Stephen H. Fischer
"spectrum analyzer"? Here is a post from the person who is going to build
http://www.avsforum.com/t/369015/san-francisco-ca-ota/9720#post_23913864

He made a post with a picture like the one in post #8038 and almost the same
words. Which thread? Too many to search to find it.

Do you have a 75 foot tower for your antennas?

http://www.avsforum.com/t/191672/los-angeles-ca-ota/8040
The flat-topped mesa on the right is a good ATSC signal for one channel.
Vertical height is signal strength and frequency increases from left to
right, by 2 MHz per grid line. The 6 MHz width of the channel is the
result of adding the various information signal frequencies to the base
frequency at the left (lower) edge. That's the simple explanation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8VSB
The dips in the bad channel on the left wiggle around as the antenna
rotates. In my case the local station I watch most is behind a ridge and I
pick up ONLY multipath reflections of it. On analog the direct path signal
showed as a faint <leading> ghost, and there were three or four strong
trailing ones. The HDTV's signal quality meter bounces all over as I
rotate the antenna, and doesn't distinguish between signal strength and
multipath distortion.
jsw

Bill Gill

2013-12-03 14:14:47 UTC

Post by Jim Wilkins
The change to ATSC only
removed the need for the longest elements, which were for channels
2-6.

But here in Tulsa, Oklahoma we still have Channels 2 and 6. I believe
in Oklahoma City they still have Channel 4. So Channels 2 - 6 have
not gone away.

Bill

Jim Wilkins

2013-12-03 15:26:47 UTC

Post by Jim Wilkins
The change to ATSC only
removed the need for the longest elements, which were for channels
2-6.

But here in Tulsa, Oklahoma we still have Channels 2 and 6. I
believe
in Oklahoma City they still have Channel 4. So Channels 2 - 6 have
not gone away.
Bill

I still have "Channel 2" but the signal is actually transmitted on UHF
channel 19, at 500-506MHz. Channel 4 is on UHF30 and Channel 5 is on
UHF20. Channels 9 and 11 are on their original frequency assignment in
the VHF-Hi band, at 186-192 MHz and 198-204MHz. I know because I watch
their multipath distortion on the spectrum analyzer when I aim the
antenna.

This is someone else doing the same thing on the same 'vintage'
equipment:
http://www.hedman.ca/rph/hp8555a/index.html

The low end is really 10MHz so it covers the VHF-Lo band, channels
2-6, and shows there's nothing there now.

jsw

Patty Winter

2013-12-03 16:21:26 UTC

Post by Jim Wilkins
The change to ATSC only
removed the need for the longest elements, which were for channels
2-6.

But here in Tulsa, Oklahoma we still have Channels 2 and 6.

Are you sure? RabbitEars.info says that virtual channel 2 is actually
broadcasting on channel 8, and channel 6 on channels 45, 19, and 30.
(There's also a channel 3, which is really on channel 31.)

Post by Bill Gill
I believe
in Oklahoma City they still have Channel 4.

Which is actually on channel 27. The lowest physical channel I see
in OK City is 7 (for virtual channel 5).

Patty

Bill Gill

2013-12-03 17:49:08 UTC

Post by Jim Wilkins
The change to ATSC only
removed the need for the longest elements, which were for channels
2-6.

But here in Tulsa, Oklahoma we still have Channels 2 and 6.

Are you sure? RabbitEars.info says that virtual channel 2 is actually
broadcasting on channel 8, and channel 6 on channels 45, 19, and 30.
(There's also a channel 3, which is really on channel 31.)

Post by Bill Gill
I believe
in Oklahoma City they still have Channel 4.

Which is actually on channel 27. The lowest physical channel I see
in OK City is 7 (for virtual channel 5).
n
Patty

If Channel 2 is broadcasting on channel 8, then where is
Channel 8 broadcasting? We do still have Channel 8. Possibly
they are talking about the cable line up. There Channel
2 is on Channel 9. As far as the other channels show, my
TV doesn't show anything but the standard channels.

Bill

Bill Gill

2013-12-03 18:09:53 UTC

Post by Jim Wilkins
The change to ATSC only
removed the need for the longest elements, which were for channels
2-6.

But here in Tulsa, Oklahoma we still have Channels 2 and 6.

Are you sure? RabbitEars.info says that virtual channel 2 is actually
broadcasting on channel 8, and channel 6 on channels 45, 19, and 30.
(There's also a channel 3, which is really on channel 31.)

Post by Bill Gill
I believe
in Oklahoma City they still have Channel 4.

Which is actually on channel 27. The lowest physical channel I see
in OK City is 7 (for virtual channel 5).
n
Patty

Ok, I just went and checked the Channel 6 license. They are
broadcasting on channel 45.

Bill

Jim Wilkins

2013-12-03 18:42:42 UTC

Post by Bill Gill
Ok, I just went and checked the Channel 6 license. They are
broadcasting on channel 45.
Bill

PW mentioned RabbitEars. You can find your local stations at
Antennaweb or TVFool also.

For Omaha 68010 Antennaweb gives some virtual (real) stations as:
ABC 7.1 (RF 20)
CBS 3.1 (RF 45)
NBC 6.1 (RF 22)
PBS 26.1 (RF 17)
FOX 42.1 (RF 43)
http://www.antennaweb.org/

You may need to know and enter the actual RadioFrequency channel
numbers to manually add channels to your HDTV or computer, if you use
it as a TV and DVR like I do.

Patty Winter

2013-12-03 19:51:53 UTC

In article <l7l5ii$mb6$***@dont-email.me>, Bill Gill <***@cox.net> wrote:

[unneeded quotage deleted]

Post by Bill Gill
If Channel 2 is broadcasting on channel 8, then where is
Channel 8 broadcasting?

On physical channel 10.

Post by Bill Gill
Possibly
they are talking about the cable line up.

No, RabbitEars does not provide cable lineups, only virtual (PSIP)
vs. physical channel numbers.

Patty

Andrew Rossmann

2013-12-03 21:57:18 UTC

Post by Jim Wilkins
If you Google for high-performance "deep fringe" antennas you'll see
designs that have barely changed since the 1950's, showing that they
are a mature, well-optimized technology. The change to ATSC only
removed the need for the longest elements, which were for channels
2-6. The highest UHF channels were also dropped but that had little
effect on antenna design. The digital channels use the same frequency
allocations and channel bandwidth as the old analog system and an
antenna doesn't know the difference.

Digital stations generally try to avoid VHF Low due to noise, but there
are some still down there. Here in Chicago, WOCK-CD is on RF4 (virtual
13). It carries MundoFox and several other subchannels.

To be honest, many of these lower-power stations only broadcast so that
cable/satellite will carry them, for a fee. WOCK's signal is too weak
for me to pick up with an antenna most of the time, and a proposed
signal change will make it worse.

--
If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
law!!
http://home.comcast.net/~andyross

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2013-12-02 23:58:09 UTC

Post by Ant
Like did they improve at all from last year, or are they mostly the
same? How about since analog days? This is assuming those indoor and
outdoor types.
Thank you in advance. :)

OK, Ant, one more time: the antenna hasn't changed since "analog days,"
as there is exactly zero difference between an OTA signal that carries
NTSC and an OTA signal that carries ATSC. The signal is the signal, and
physics is physics. None of that has changed.

G-squared

2013-12-03 03:55:24 UTC

Post by Ant
Like did they improve at all from last year, or are they mostly the
same? How about since analog days? This is assuming those indoor and
outdoor types.
Thank you in advance. :)
--
Quote of the Week: "Even the sharpest ear cannot hear an ant singing." --Sudanese
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail. If crediting,
( ) then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.

Hi Ant,

I'm using a 1991 Winegard for my VHF and A 2004 Winegard for the UHF portion. A good antenna is fine for analog or digital - the spectrum is the same for both - at least in North America.

There are a lot of wild claims for antennas but I can tell you that for antennas I installed or recommended to friends, never once in 35 years has there been disappointment from Winegard antennas. They just work correctly.

In LA we have high band (7-13) VHF and UHF but no low band (2-6) thankfully. Winegard has antennas specifically for VHF hi and UHF that have good gain and directivity. For you I'd check the HD-7694, the 'bottom' of the line but still very respectable. It has several dB more gain than the SquareShooter I use. I use no preamps and split to 3 destinations 35 miles from Mt. Wilson and have flawless reception in any weather.

G²

2013-12-03 13:58:53 UTC

Post by Ant
Like did they improve at all from last year, or are they mostly the
same? How about since analog days? This is assuming those indoor and
outdoor types.
Thank you in advance. :)

Short answer: No.

Slightly longer answer: Any changes you see in design are more for
aesthetics than for performance. That, and to bilk the clueless consumer
into buying something "new" and "improved" that actually isn't.

TJ

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2013-12-03 23:27:57 UTC

Post by Ant
Like did they improve at all from last year, or are they mostly the
same? How about since analog days? This is assuming those indoor and
outdoor types.
Thank you in advance. :)

Short answer: No.
Slightly longer answer: Any changes you see in design are more for
aesthetics than for performance. That, and to bilk the clueless consumer
into buying something "new" and "improved" that actually isn't.

But oooooooo, it's a DIGITAL antenna!

And did you know--now hold onto something so you don't fall--you can
actually get TV for FREE? That's right, FREE!!!!!

Gene E. Bloch

2013-12-03 23:33:11 UTC

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
But oooooooo, it's a DIGITAL antenna!

Somehow, that gave me the idea that I could paint my fingers with
conductive paint and attach them to my TV as a...digital antenna.

(I need to get out more...)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

2013-12-04 13:12:59 UTC

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
But oooooooo, it's a DIGITAL antenna!

Somehow, that gave me the idea that I could paint my fingers with
conductive paint and attach them to my TV as a...digital antenna.
(I need to get out more...)

Well... You can. And it might work - but you don't need the paint.

TJ

Gene E. Bloch

2013-12-04 22:04:47 UTC

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
But oooooooo, it's a DIGITAL antenna!

Somehow, that gave me the idea that I could paint my fingers with
conductive paint and attach them to my TV as a...digital antenna.
(I need to get out more...)

Well... You can. And it might work - but you don't need the paint.
TJ

Even if I take my portable TV set with me?

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Jim Wilkins

2013-12-05 00:13:01 UTC

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
But oooooooo, it's a DIGITAL antenna!

Somehow, that gave me the idea that I could paint my fingers with
conductive paint and attach them to my TV as a...digital antenna.
(I need to get out more...)

Well... You can. And it might work - but you don't need the paint.
TJ

Even if I take my portable TV set with me?
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

I'm working on a device that will let the viewers transmit a
one-finger image back to the TV networks.

Gene E. Bloch

2013-12-05 00:18:52 UTC

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
But oooooooo, it's a DIGITAL antenna!

Somehow, that gave me the idea that I could paint my fingers with
conductive paint and attach them to my TV as a...digital antenna.
(I need to get out more...)

Well... You can. And it might work - but you don't need the paint.
TJ

Even if I take my portable TV set with me?
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

I'm working on a device that will let the viewers transmit a one-finger image
back to the TV networks.

Let me know when it's available. I'll definitely be interested.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Jim Wilkins

2013-12-05 01:07:35 UTC

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
But oooooooo, it's a DIGITAL antenna!

Somehow, that gave me the idea that I could paint my fingers with
conductive paint and attach them to my TV as a...digital
antenna.
(I need to get out more...)

Well... You can. And it might work - but you don't need the
paint.
TJ

Even if I take my portable TV set with me?
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

I'm working on a device that will let the viewers transmit a
one-finger image back to the TV networks.

Let me know when it's available. I'll definitely be interested.
--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Just kidding, I already have it.
Contact the writers:
https://twitter.com/JaneEspenson
No insults for her, though.
jsw

2013-12-05 14:03:47 UTC

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
But oooooooo, it's a DIGITAL antenna!

Somehow, that gave me the idea that I could paint my fingers with
conductive paint and attach them to my TV as a...digital antenna.
(I need to get out more...)

Well... You can. And it might work - but you don't need the paint.
TJ

Even if I take my portable TV set with me?
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

I'm working on a device that will let the viewers transmit a
one-finger image back to the TV networks.

Let me know when it's available. I'll definitely be interested.

Check Google Play or the Amazon store. There's probably an app for that.

TJ

Sal

2013-12-11 00:55:17 UTC